[ICD 10 Search]

Back
[ICD 10 Search]

Norm (philosophy)

Norms are a sort of sentencesor sentence meanings, the most common of which are commandsand permissions. Another popular account of norms describes them as reasonsto act, believeor feel.

Image:Socrates.png

Philosophy Portal

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1 Some kinds of norms
2 Major characteristics
3 Do norms exist?
4 Norms without expression
5 See also
6 Further reading

Some kinds of norms

Orders and permissions express norms. These norm sentences do not describehow the worldis, they rather prescribehow the world should be. Imperativesentences are the most obvious way to express norms, but declarative sentences also do it very often, as is the case with many laws. Unlike, say, propositional sentences which express states of affairs, the norms expressed are the meanings of these sentences. Those norms purporting to create obligations(or duties) and permissionsare called deonticnorms (see also deontic logic).

The concept of deontic norm is already an extension of a previous concept of norm, which would only include imperatives, that is, norms purporting to create duties. The understanding that permissions are norms in the same way was an important step in ethicsand philosophy of law.

In addition to deontic norms, many other varieties have been identified. For instance, some constitutionsestablish the national anthem. These norms do not directly create any duty or permission. They create a "national symbol". Other norms create nationsthemselves or politicaland administrativeregions within a nation. Similarly, any conventioncan create a norm, although the relation between both is not settled.

There is a significant discussion about (legal) norms that give someone the powerto create other norms. They are called power-conferring norms or norms of competence. Some authors argue that they are still deontic norms, while others argue for a close connection between them and institutional facts(see Raz 1975, Ruiter 1993).

Linguisticconventions, for example, the convention in Englishthat "cat" means cat or the convention in Portuguesethat "gato" means cat, are among the most important norms.

Gamescompletely depend on norms. The fundamental norm of many games is the norm establishing who wins and loses. In other games, it is the norm establishing how to score points.

Major characteristics

One major characteristic of norms is that, unlike propositions, they are not descriptively trueor false, since norms do not purport to describe anything, but to prescribe, create or change something. Some people say they are "prescriptively true" or false. Whereas the truth of a descriptive statement is purportedly based on its correspondenceto reality, some philosophers, beginning with Aristotle, assert that the (prescriptive) truth of a prescriptive statement is based on its correspondence to right desire. Other philosophers maintain that norms are ultimately neither true or false, but only successful or unsuccessful (valid or invalid), as their propositionalcontent obtains or not (see also John Searleand speech act).

There is an important difference between norms and normative propositions, although they are often expressed by identical sentences. "You may go out." usually expresses a norm if it is uttered by the teacher to one of the students, but it usually expresses a normative proposition if it is uttered to one of the students by one of his or her classmates. Some ethical theories reject that there can be normative propositions, but these are accepted by cognitivism. One can also think of propositional norms; assertionsand questionsarguably express propositional norms (they set a proposition as asserted or questioned).

Another purported feature of norms, it is often argued, is that they never regard only natural propertiesor entities. Norms always bring something artificial, conventional, institutionalor "unworldly". This might be related to Hume'sassertion that it is not possible to derive ought from isand to G.E. Moore'sclaim that there is a naturalistic fallacywhen one tries to analyse "good" and "bad" in terms of a natural concept. In aesthetics, it has also been argued that it is impossible to derive an aesthetical predicatefrom a non-aesthetical one. The acceptability of non-natural properties, however, is strongly debated in present day philosophy. Some authors deny their existence, some others try to reducethem to natural ones, on which the former supervene.

Other thinkers (Adler, 1986) assert that norms can be naturalin a different sense than that of "corresponding to something proceeding from the object of the prescription as a strictly internal source of action". Rather, those who assert the existence of natural prescriptions say norms can suit a natural need on the part of the prescribed entity. More to the point, however, is the putting forward of the notion that just as descriptive statements being considered true are conditioned upon certain self-evidentdescriptive truths suiting the nature of reality (such as: it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be at the same time and in the same manner), a prescriptive truth can suit the nature of the will through the authority of it being based upon self-evidentprescriptive truths (such as: one ought to desire what is really good for one and nothing else).

Recent works maintain that normativity has an important role in several different philosophical subjects, not only in ethics and philosophy of law (see Dancy, 2000).

Do norms exist?

Image:Wiki letter w.pngThis section is a stub. You can helpby [{{fullurl:Template:FULLPAGENAME|action=edit}} adding to it].

The question whether norms actually existmight arguably have the same answer as the question whether propositionsexist.

Norms without expression

It is discussed whether there can be norms (or valid norms) which are not (yet) expressed in any way. Suppose someone decides to go to bed always before 5 a.m., but she does not say it. She just decides in her thoughts. It seems that she has just set a norm for herself.

Or suppose that a Frenchcourt rules that it is unlawful to build a high wall in one's propertywith the sole purpose of casting a shadow on my neighbor's property, since that causesa damage and it is unlawful, in principle, to cause damages to other people. This court seems to be enforcing a general principle, a norm, the norm that it is unlawful, in principle, to cause damages. The problem is that this norm is not written anywhere in French laws and it cannot easily be grounded on a practice or custom. Should it be accepted as a valid norm?